Tag: Health

We’ve all been exposed to the films, books, and for some possibly the first-hand experience, in which a slave refers to their owner as “Master”. How did that terminology, in that context, ever come about? If looking at definitions in various dictionaries online, it seems to make a great deal of difference whether we’re using the word as a noun, adjective or verb.

As a noun, “Master” seems to most commonly mean someone, or something, in charge. Again there is the illustration of a slave owner, or the head of a household. Or it could mean a part, or aspect, of a mechanical or electrical system which is somehow central, upon which the functioning of the other parts or aspects of the system depend. Such as a “master” switch.

In these usages, as a noun, it seems there is consistently the principle of dependence involved. The Master is something or someone needed so everything or everybody else can function. However, is the reality between a mechanical and an organic system really that similar? Does the same level of dependency between a master and a slave component within a mechanical or electronic system really ever exist between human beings? Has it ever?

Within a machine or device, if the “master” component is not functioning properly, the other components of the machine or device which are “slave” to that component are useless, in every sense of the word. They have no capacity for independent action. Their entire reason for existing is negated.

Is that ever the case when it’s human beings involved rather than mechanical components? I suppose one might argue that relative to a certain specific situation, say a factory which produces a sophisticated electronic product, all the production workers in the factory are dependent upon the person who designed the product in the first place. It definitely may be said (changing usage of the word “master” momentarily to a verb) that the designer has mastered some skill or area of knowledge and is therefore (changing to an adjective) a “master” of some skill. But if that factory closes down, are the production workers going to be totally rendered useless? Totally impotent and meaningless from that point forward as machine components would be? Are human beings ever so totally, immutably, dependent upon a role as a component in a system that, should that role cease to exist, their entire meaning, their ability to function in any respect, is lost? While some people may have felt that way at some time or another, ultimately, the answer is a resounding “NO”. Human beings and mechanical components are not inherently the same in this regard.

But a particular human being may be so conditioned, so deceived by the circumstances of their life, of their environment, that they believe this level of dependency to be the truth of their life. And while a profound physiologic disability of some kind may indeed render an individual totally dependent upon another for their physical survival, in general, for the vast majority of human beings, this is not at all inherently the case. If a person does hold a belief in such a level of dependency upon another, it is the result of that person having somehow been presented with and having accepted an illusion, a lie, as the reality of their life.

For unlike mechanical components, human beings are inherently capable of independently adjusting, adapting, to new, different, circumstances. It takes work, it can be difficult (or not) depending upon many internal and external variables, but the ability to attain this level of mastery over one’s own life is totally within the scope of human existence. In fact, I would say that ultimately this level of mastery over our own life is an inherent aspect of our destiny as sentient beings.

Further, I would say that nobody can ever truly, completely gain mastery over the life of another. For one thing, we have too much to do with the inherent task we face of mastering our own life. Any time we spend trying to become master over the life of another is time spent in futility. Or worse, possibly time spent counter-productively within our own developmental imperative?

So, while we may be able, at some time or another, for a finite amount of time, be able to dominate certain aspects of the lives of one or more people; we cannot ever truly become the master over the life of another human being. Further, to attempt to dominate over the lives of others, for anything other than a benevolent purpose relative to a task with specific time and place parameters, such as a surgeon dominating the activities taking place within an operating room, is to enter into a relationship with that person or persons which will ultimately result in ill-fitting contortions of life for all concerned.

Yet all this is not to say that we cannot, through truly understanding ourselves, gain understanding, insight, into the lives of others. We can, and by doing so we can and do become more valuable as a friend, a partner, a parent. We are more able to relate to others and to interact with others, with those we love, in activities which are mutually enjoyable and to mutual developmental benefit.

Ultimately, we are social beings. Independent social beings, each with our own free will and our own developmental imperative. However, we all need life-sustaining, meaningful interactions with one another. In fact, we need to learn to live and work cooperatively, to support and be an asset to one another. Is that a paradox? Not at all, what it is, is, simply, the inherent, wonderful, nature of our lives.

When we truly realize this truth about the inherent nature of our lives, when we leave behind the ego trips, the grandiose, narcissistic and/or megalomaniacal schemes to dominate the lives of others, then we can truly engage in discovering, and mastering, the unlimited wonders, the amazing potential available to us, which are inherent within each and every one of us!

It’s happening all around the world. Once thriving oceans, seas, lakes, rivers are dying. People are experiencing various forms of cancer at unprecedented rates. Also hypothyroidism, diabetes, and other diseases are increasing in prevalence. Then there are the dis-eases often categorized as mental disorders: anxiety, depression, anger, and more. What do all these things have in common? All of these maladies, environmental and human, are either caused or exacerbated by one or more of the various forms of pollution which are rampant in our world today.

These forms of pollution include pollution of our water, air, earth, bodies, minds, and spirits. Many types of corporeal pollution are listed above. Regarding our minds and spirits, we are currently experiencing widespread pollution of human kind by greed, fear, hate and anger. It only takes picking up a newspaper to find instances of this pollution at work.

Who to blame, or is there anyone to blame? Do we always have to look for someone to blame? In this case, yes, there most definitely are people at the root of the problem.

One source; a company, a government, a religion, or other agency with financial or other special interests produces “X” amount of physical and/or mental/spiritual pollution, another company produces 2 times as much. Another company maybe only produces 1/2 as much. And all of them are saying that they do not produce enough pollution to be causing such problems. And all of them are right. And all of them are wrong. If you aren’t familiar with Aesop’s fable of the “The Crow and the Pitcher”, I hope you’ll read it. It explains a lot.

Regarding the environmental pollution, where is the E.P.A. in all of this? They’ve been busy repeatedly firing Dr. William Marcus and then repeatedly trying to defend that action in court. And I imagine other activities of similar ilk, all conducted behind closed doors. Don’t ask, don’t tell. Many believe that today, under the Trump administration, the fox has been put in charge of the henhouse at the E.P.A. (Personally I think that has effectively been the case for at least a few decades.)

Regarding the mental/spiritual pollution, what human agency is watching out for the common person? At this point, no one. We are pretty much on our own to decide what ideas, beliefs, we incorporate into our lives. Which, in order for us to retain our humanity, is as it should be. Free will is a wonderful thing. Yet, why are so many so quick, so willing to incorporate ideas filled with greed, hate, fear and anger? One reason, I believe, is because those are the ideas people are being repeatedly exposed to by, again, those with the reins of power around the world.

Around the world, we see people being led to embrace greed, hate, fear and anger en masse by those whom those people trust to tell them what’s happening in the world. Special interests have most definitely infected many of the media, schools, and religious institutions. I heard a proverb years ago that: “When interest enters in, truth flies out the window.” Again, it’s a matter of no one contributing source being the whole problem, and again, the fable of “The Crow and the Pitcher” tells the story.

Don’t we see what’s happening? Don’t we understand the real and potential problems associated with pollution? Don’t we, with all our technology, possess the means to prevent and correct such problems? The answer to all these questions is the same: “Yes we do”. However, there is another question and an answer which, together, underlie all these problems: Don’t those with the reins of power around the world possess the wisdom and will to value our planet’s ability to sustain life, and the myriad benefits of humankind cooperatively coexisting, more than the unbridled acquisition of power and material wealth? Unfortunately at this time, the answer to that question which we are seeing repeatedly demonstrated is: “No”.

Too many people want their stock dividends, too many CEO’s want their large bonuses, the power and influence of too many public offices are for sale. Amongst the common folk, apparently too many people are contributing to the culture of pollution with the purchases we make. To some extent we are at the mercy of those in control of production and marketing. However we should all be mindful of the impact our purchases have upon the burden of waste in the world. And, I would add, too many are too readily accepting the “reasoning” being put forward by those in power for why our natural resources and our treasuries are being managed in the way they are. And too many people are accepting the special interest driven “reasoning” being offered for why we should embrace greed and hold hate, fear and anger toward others.

I think at some point in the future when archeologists, quite possibly from another planet because Earthlings will have become extinct, look for the “whys” to the last great extinction event on Earth, they will find a direct causative chain of: human greed – pollution – willful ignoring and exacerbating of the problems – extinction.

Yet, around the world, little by little, people are waking up. So the last question is; will enough people be awake and taking corrective action before it is too late? It truly is a case of “United we stand, divided we fall.”

I am using the same artwork for this article as the last one because, well, it is just so appropriate. And I would rather think optimistically then post a picture of the pollution, and it’s effects, which we can all see without any great effort.

This is a “laundry list” of things which, if put into effect, would go a long way toward effectively stabilizing human culture, re-humanizing humanity, doing away with war, decreasing the prevalence of many illnesses, and making life worth living! None of these, except one (I won’t say which one), are my original ideas. They are from people who have studied the issues and weighed the related factors. As I have accumulated them over years I apologize that I do not cite the source. In the interest of brevity I have sometimes combined what were originally separate ideas but which dovetail nicely together.

A three day work week with a living wage.

Abolish the stock market. Keep companies in the hands of their founders and workers (employee ownership). Let the consumers decide via their purchases, or lack thereof, when a company’s product is no longer desired.

New ideas for products/companies can be financed via bank loans, personal loans or the sale of bonds. All at a reasonable rate of interest and able to be paid off.

Eliminate speculation in agricultural or any other products. This only artificially raises prices thereby fueling inflation. (Essentially do away with a “casino economy”.)

All industrial or other waste which poses a threat to the health of our environment must be discontinued or treated in such a fashion as to effectively neutralize any threat it may pose.

Legalize the production, sale and use of all natural substances which may be categorized as “drugs”. These include marijuana, coca, poppies and their derivatives. No prescription needed for these substances. In order to purchase these substances a person must have a card indicating they have completed an introductory class of at least 3 hrs. in duration about the potential dangers and benefits of each substance they wish to be allowed to purchase. Including tobacco and alcohol.

Re-institute regulations around the number of television stations, radio stations, newspapers and other media outlets that any one person or corporation may own.

Via regulations affecting banks, arms manufacturers and other government contractors, remove the the profit motive from war.

Make the dissemination of false and/or misleading information by elected and/or appointed government officials/employees a criminal offense (if it isn’t already) and enforce it.

Restrict election financing. Cap the dollar amount any one candidate can spend during an election campaign. Make it a felony with significant penalties for any person, corporation or foreign nation, or any agent thereof, to give donations, gifts, or make promises of future financial/material gain to any elected or appointed government official/employee. Or for any elected or appointed government official and/or employee to receive such donations or gifts.

Maintain and adequately fund community based (not private) and regulated police forces, fire departments, schools, parks, hospitals, ambulance/EMT services (universal healthcare) and other services. Such as concert and sports venues as a community desires and can support.

Income from concerts, sporting events, etc, above and beyond that used to pay workers, performers, athletes, etc., should go to public coffers and to fund public services and infrastructure.

Establish and enforce both a minimum and maximum personal income. The minimum income would insure basic housing, food and essentials for all. There could be some work requirement (public service) upon those receiving it. The maximum income would include income from all sources combined. This would be in force for all people regardless of profession. The maximum income should be no more than 7 times the minimum wage (not the minimum income which may be slightly less than the minimum wage).

While in a rough draft format, as mentioned above this is at least a partial “laundry list” of actions which, if instituted, would serve to stabilize and re-humanize our cultures and our world.

(Well, it didn’t take long for me to drift away from trying to post on Saturdays.) Anyway, I recently had cause to be researching the topic of “stewardship”. I think most people are familiar with the concept of stewardship, but maybe not. So to begin with, here is an excerpt from the Merriam-Webster Online definition:

“2 : the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care”

That pretty much sums it up.

The first I can remember hearing anything about stewardship was when I was young and attending a Methodist church in the small Midwest town I grew up in. Stewardship was an important topic in that church. Probably the most well known Bible story relating to stewardship is the story of Joseph in Egypt. How Joseph, acting as a good servant, espousing good stewardship, was a blessing to the Egyptian people. You can read more about the story of Joseph in the Book of Genesis beginning at chapter 37. The topic of stewardship was one that came up every now and then in the topics being presented.

That association of stewardship and religion led me to look to see what some other religions had to say on the topic. There is a lot that is written and discussed online around this topic related to various religions. However, there did clearly appear to be a consensus to be found among many of the world’s religions. Most of the information I have listed below are excerpts taken from the website “Religion Answers” although I often found similar quotes within other sources:

Within the Islamic faith we find: “The three most important principles of the Prophet’s philosophy of nature are based on the Quranic teachings and the concepts of tawhid (unity), khalifa (stewardship) and amana (trust).”

The Hindu teaching has this to say: “Stewardship is Right Conduct, what the Hindu calls dharma. Stewardship extends to water, to land, to animals, to food, to resources. Nature is Prakriti, Mother Earth is one of the Gods. Earth must be treated with respect.”

Buddhism: “Stewardship is management of the Earth and its resources in accord with the dhamma, the teaching of the Buddha. This includes respect for all forms of life. Stewardship scopes to include environmental ethics, obligation to future generations, risk, and development of technology.”

Sikhism: “The holy scriptures in Sikhism say God is the creator of all that exists., Man has a duty to care for the creation, The world reflects what is inside man – pollution, global warming, ecology disasters – all these reflect what is inside every man, woman and child.”

In the Old Testament:(This does not come from “Religion Answers.) I have to say this is one area of discussion that got a little blurry. It seems to be accepted that God gave man dominion over the Earth. The blurriness seems to be in how that may be interpreted from one place to another. Does “dominion” mean do what you will? That the Earth and it’s resources are here for our plunder? Or does it mean that the Earth belongs to humankind for our caretaking? For our stewardship in keeping with love for God and for one another? Big difference. I think (and hope) most conscientious, spiritually minded persons from both Judaism and Christianity regard it in the latter context.

From the New Testament: Titus 1:7 ESV : “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,”

These are just a few examples. From what I’ve found Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Native American teachings, African native spiritual practices and Paganism all hold the value of respectfully and responsibly, if not lovingly, caring for the Earth and it’s resources. I have not researched every religion, however, from the pattern which clearly shows within the ones I’ve listed, good stewardship, especially of the Earth and it’s resources, has been a shared and cherished value within the religious traditions of most, if not all, people from all around the world for a long, long time.

Imagine, human beings from most, if not all, cultures and locations on the Earth, who have sought wisdom within our spiritual reality, have for centuries, if not millenia, held values consistent with one another about how we should revere and care for, how we should engage in good stewardship of, the Earth and it’s resources. Talk about common ground! What has happened to divert so much of humanity from this very common understanding of our role as stewards upon the Earth?

If humankind, around the world, were to in deed practice conscientious, responsible, loving stewardship of the Earth and it’s resources, keeping in mind that humankind itself may be thought of as another resource upon the Earth, imagine how wonderful this planet and the cultures we build upon it might be?

Why do I use Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs so often in my articles? Because it informs us of a universal key to a successful life as an individual and as a culture.

Culture. We all need one to live. However, if and when that culture becomes too rigid, too intolerant, it stops being the supportive, nurturing, positive context we all need for whole, healthy lives. We human beings are complex in our make-up, in how it is that we experience our world, our environment, and in how we, as individuals, want to respond and behave within it. Each of us, while we do all share an essential common core of basic needs: water, food, air, shelter, love…, as complex beings are also very different in many ways.

We all experience and relate to our world in a somewhat different manner. Some people are more oriented toward an auditory experience of the world. Some the visual, or the tactile. And there are many other aspects of our lives which we all approach in different measure, with varying degrees of passion. We all have available to us the realities of logic, mathematics, healing/medicine, art, architecture, music, taste/food, physical capabilities; balance, strength, motion, sensuality. There are so very many aspects of our lives and our world which we all can and do find ourselves drawn to, interested in, to varying degrees. And they are all equally valid*. What we find ourselves naturally drawn to is the path we need, as an individual living organism with both physical and spiritual components. The path which will lead us to realizing our individual developmental journey in this life. It is, in fact our developmental imperative. And, again, they are all equally valid*.

This reality, of individual developmental imperatives, while so common sensical and simple at it’s base, has profound implications for us within our cultures and interpersonal relationships. Currently, in many cultures, there is an expectation, sometimes a quite rigid expectation, that within the culture we should all follow a highly regimented common path. This can, and often does, apply within our interpersonal relationships and especially marriages. It can, and often does demand, that one party accept a subservient relationship to the other. Often, but by no means always, the subservient role is expected of the female. It is hard, real hard, (all but impossible?) to get in touch with and express one’s individual developmental imperative in such a situation. Someone may want to attempt the argument that then the subservient person is experiencing that difficulty then that is their developmental imperative at that moment (to learn it is impossible to experience self-actualization while being rigidly held to someone else’s expectations and rules?). What do you think?

Within healthy interpersonal relationships we often take on obligations. Couples take on the obligation of maintaining a household, raising children, working together toward common goals. Honoring one’s own developmental imperative does not mean being defiantly independent and resisting all cooperative efforts and arrangements in our lives. It does mean being in touch with and honest with ourselves. Honoring what we know to be our essential orientations and needs. When partners recognize this reality within their own and their partner’s life, and when the individual orientations and needs are not incompatible with the needs that exist within the partnership, then all’s well. As a matter of fact, it’s better than well, it’s excellent.

The only way it gets any better is when partners within a relationship not only recognize and honor one another’s individual developmental imperatives, but take an active interest in seeing one another succeed in expressing them.

Today in the world at large we see individual developmental imperatives being honored, or neglected, to varying degrees. Some cultures all but totally reject it. When a brutally enforced totalitarian expectation of conformity is present, individual developmental imperative hides in fear. Or there may be martyrs in it’s name. The individual developmental imperative seems to most often demand our attention by being gently insistent. However, if continually repressed there can be pressure that builds up behind it. It can cry out within our being for recognition and expression.

The same is true within families, or interpersonal relationships and marriages. It can require determination and personal effort in developing knowledge and reason for individual developmental imperative to find fertile ground. Personal insecurities can get in the way of one’s own ability to express one’s developmental imperative and it can cause us to try to repress it in others. Within close relationships knowledge of one another combined with trust and reliability are important.

We don’t come into this world “blank slates”. We arrive with a developmental imperative already well underway. Our spirit, our mind, our nervous system are already geared for the path that will serve us the best. And, if we are happy and accomplished at a skill which brings enlightenment, joy, and increased turn-on to life and well-being to others…then it is a win-win-win situation.

Again, there is work involved, and discipline. Work and discipline are not bad things when applied to the expression of that which we deeply love and seek to honor with our being. In that context work and discipline feel right and we recognize the value they can add to our achieving that which we desire.

*So why the asterisk, the caveat? Because there is something we need to acknowledge and honor in order to preserve our individual ability to access, explore and fulfill our lives. It is really very simple: we need to acknowledge and honor the basic needs and lives of everyone else as if they were our own. Which means if we perceive our developmental imperative as requiring us to harm others, to inflict physical, psychological and/or spiritual harm: mutilation, deprivation, destruction, upon others, then we need to rethink how we are interpreting our perceptions. It is likely that if we find ourself having such thoughts that they are an expression of anxiety and fear. Emotions often stemming from, at sometime in our past, our having been harmed, significantly physically, psychologically and/or emotionally mistreated. And/or quite possibly that we are suffering from a neurological impairment resulting from an insult to our brain. Possibly from a physical or chemical insult, or resulting from experiencing significant prolonged stress. What is needed is an experience of pervasive healing: and that experience will not manifest by harming others.

Somewhere in the past I read in a text, which I can’t remember the title of, that due to the difficult, treacherous circumstances of life on Earth, all spirits that take it upon themselves to be born here are considered heros. There are so very many dangers, pitfalls, that exist for humans. Diseases, dangerous substances, accidents, but possibly the most difficult challenges we all face are the ones related to our own senses and how we handle, how we react, to the stimulation we receive from them.

“Where the senses go the mind follows.” (author unknown) is a quote which pretty much sums up the challenge. This is such an incredibly rich planet in terms of sensory, sensual, experiences. Visual, auditory, tactile and energetic; stimulation reaching one or all of the seven chakras within us.

When the stimulation we are receiving leads us to begin considering actions which in some way compromise some aspect of our lives, our personal coherence, integrity; when we are considering actions which stand to affect the nature of our relationship with the rest of the physical, mental, spiritual world we live in (turning harmony into dissonance)- that is when we are truly facing the nature of challenge this planet, and the life on it, is famous or infamous for presenting us with.

In a way, life here on this small outpost on the fringes of the Milky Way galaxy, seems a testing ground. Can we, as spiritual/physical beings, face the sometimes (often?) seemingly contradictory “pulls” and demands upon us relating to security, integrity, pleasure, livelihood, in ways which are harmonious and viable within the whole of our spiritual/physical existence? Keeping in mind also that we live within a unified field and in order to be truly healthy, happy and viable we necessarily must be primarily in harmony with the forces within it. It’s not and never has been “all about me”. And yet it is.

Last night I watched the movie “Me Before You”. It’s about a man who is quadriplegic after an accident with a scooter. Long story short, he decides he doesn’t want to live any longer with the limitations and pain he endures and …………….(spoiler alert) ……………………………ends his life.

The movie brings attention to the issues of assisted suicide, personal relationships and quality of life. It also begs the question of why on Earth is anybody still having to endure, long term, the medical issues of paraplegia or quadriplegia? By this I don’t mean why doesn’t everybody with paraplegia or quadriplegia kill themselves. I do mean that in cases in which a person’s spinal cord is severed in an accident, why aren’t we using the therapies that are known to result in the body healing this damage?

Although I’ve heard of others, for example, one involving the use of white blood cells that must be performed within a short time frame after the injury, what I am mainly referring to is stem cell therapy to facilitate healing of the spinal cord. Why isn’t this being performed regularly?

I have seen an excellent video of a mouse who had it’s spinal cord severed, and even after a period of time during which it experienced atrophy in the affected limbs, it was able to regain use of the affected limbs after a stem cell transplant. I just checked online and I was unable to locate that video (??). Where did it go? But mice aren’t people, right?

Remember Christopher Reeve? He played Superman in movies a couple decades or so ago. He suffered a spinal cord injury and spent years as a quadriplegic. During this time he became active as an advocate for issues relating to spinal cord injuries. Stem cell therapy is one issue he was involved with. I just looked at the Wikipedia article about him and it cites his work to get stem cell research funded. Research is a necessary prerequisite to treatment, however, research is not treatment. Why even mention this obvious truth? More on that later.

Shortly after his death I read an article in “Readers Digest” about a woman in South Korea that had suffered a spinal cord injury many years ago and who had recently received stem cell therapy. She was, according to the article, recovering use of the affected limbs. It was around 2004 when I read this article, it was a recent article at the time. I thought it poignant that this article should appear so shortly after Christopher Reeve’s death. It brought to mind the question of why didn’t he ever receive stem cell therapy?

What are the problems with stem cell therapy? Why isn’t it being used? When stem cell therapy first began receiving widespread coverage in the mainstream press, to my recollection, it was immediately coupled with the issue of having to use stem cells from aborted babies. So, essentially, stem cell therapy was given a “black eye” right out of the gate. Dead babies? If we open the door to stem cell therapy we’re going to be up to our eyeballs in aborted fetuses, right? Women will be selling their unborn babies so rich folks can have stem cell therapy, right? Women might even be getting pregnant just to have a fetus to abort and sell. Horrible, but not an unthinkable scenario. And the media saw to it we were all thinking it. Stem cell therapy was cast in the roll of the therapy from hell: avoid it at all costs.

Stem cell therapy isn’t the only potential treatment to undergo this type of demonization. How many decades did “Reefer Madness”, and other misinformation define the public perception of marijuana? (And still does in some places.)

However, during the 1990’s there was another, infinitely less, publicized event taking place in the State of Washington, U.S.A. A company named CellPro, in Bothell, Washington, was working on a method of extracting stem cells from an adult human body that could be used by the person they were extracted from for stem cell therapy. Pretty anti-climatic in comparison to being led to believe stem cell therapy would lead to the gates of hell being greased with the bodies of dead fetuses. From the point of view of selling news with sensationalism, I can see why the CellPro story might not be appealing to the marketing folk down at the press. But is that the only reason most people in the world have never heard of CellPro nor their success? That’s right, success.

During the 1990’s, CellPro successfully developed a method of extracting stem cells from an adult human being that can be used by that person for stem cell therapies. No chance of rejection, no lifetime of anti-rejection medications, and maybe that touches on why it received so little publicity (?). CellPro’s relatively inexpensive method was successfully used to save one life, one. A case involving cancer. Did I mention it was planned to be relatively inexpensive, around $10,000 at the time? Again I find myself asking: is that touching on why most people in the world have never heard of CellPro? If you want to know what happened to this company and the blessing they were getting ready to unleash on the human race, there is a book about it. The person who’s life was saved wrote a book.

He was the CEO of CellPro. The book is: “Patient Number One”, by Rick Murdock and David Fisher. If you’re interested in learning more about the convoluted interrelationship between medicine, big business, government, and the people affected by it, I recommend this book. It’s not an easy read, but it’s worth it.

Again, long story short, CellPro was, in effect, shut down by a U.S. District Court judge. At the very least the judge’s ruling made sure the words “relatively inexpensive” would no longer be applicable. The reality turned out to be that, in effect, CellPro’s fate was sealed. That was a U.S. District Court protecting us…from what? Good health care?

As I mentioned above, medical research is not medical treatment. Obvious? Should be, but the reality in the U.S. has to give one pause. In an article updated in 2005 on NBC News.com, the amount spent on medical research, each year, in the U.S. was 95 billion (with a “B”) dollars. What should we be expecting for 95 billion dollars a year? Are we getting it? There can be no doubt that there is BIG money in medical research. How about cures? Maybe not so much? Look what happened to CellPro with their relatively inexpensive method of procuring transplantable stem cells. What’s that about? The fact is medical research is often touted as if it were treatment. It’s not.

There are a significant number of people, and I would say an increasing number of people, in the U.S. and elsewhere that suspect treatments which would actually cure various diseases are, when discovered, buried, kept secret, in order not to jeopardize the multi-billion dollar medical research industry. The case of CellPro definitely pushes this notion a step away from the realm of conspiracy theory and into the realm of conspiracy fact.

The Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation has a website which gives estimated costs for individuals living with a spinal cord injury. The least figure they give is for “Incomplete motor function (any level)”. Those costs are given as: $347,484 the first year and $42,206 every year thereafter. The lifetime estimated costs for someone in this category who experiences the injury at 25 years of age, are given as: $1,578,274. From there, as they get into the costs of paraplegia and other more profound loss of ability, the costs, as one would expect, go up. A lot.

Compare this with the costs of one time stem cell transplant with no ongoing anti-rejection medication needed. Tripling what, in the 1990’s, CellPro estimated would be their costs in obtaining the needed stem cells, from your own body, would put that cost at around $30,000. Then there would be the cost of the implant itself, an injection. If we think extortionate costs for that procedure, that might be around $100.000. Even at extortionate pricing it doesn’t come close to the estimated costs for a lifetime of medication, medical devices, ongoing medical evaluation, caregivers and whatever else would enter in. But what does that have to do with anything?

Is the system of medical care in the U.S. and the treatments employed the best in the world? Let’s hope not. I’m sure most of the medical industry’s P.R. folks would use descriptors like: excellent, stellar, state of the art, etc. It seems some of these treatments might be more accurately portrayed as: the costliest we have, obsolete, ineffective, barbaric. I’m sure there are a lot of good doctors in the U.S., thank goodness. However, when even good doctors are at the mercy of a larger, institutionalized, business oriented medical system, well, sometimes their hands are figuratively tied. Extravagant malpractice suits are the sword of Damocles hanging over the head of each and every physician in the U.S. Sometimes the malpractice suits even make the extortionate pricing too often used by hospitals, clinics and other providers look trivial.

By designing/allowing extravagant malpractice suits into the bigger picture of the healthcare system those controlling the system gave themselves a ” big stick” with which to threaten recalcitrant physicians.

The stem cell issue is just one of many treatment issues which have plagued our medical system over the past few decades. The healthcare system in the U.S. has developed a track record of giving highly preferential treatment to those treatments marketed by big, wealthy corporations. Pharmaceuticals immediately come to mind.

Some of the treatments which are either hard to obtain, largely ignored or actively lobbied against, even made illegal at some point if they still aren’t, include: marijuana, stem cell therapy, neurofeedback, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and various cancer treatments offered in other countries but banned in the U.S. I’m sure there are more.

The point is this: Our healthcare system needs to be primarily and uncompromisingly dedicated to supporting and sustaining good health for all people. Right now it is severely compromised by individuals who are using the importance of health and healthcare to contaminate our healthcare system with, what amount to, various avenues and degrees of extortion in a sociopathic pursuit of inordinate wealth.